Trump Is Winning on Trade

Making America great again.

As the media continues to fixate on the Trump campaign’s supposed ties with Russia, reporters and ordinary Americans are missing a much more important story: the opening chapter in Trump’s efforts to reform U.S. trade policies. During the campaign, Trump spoke again and again about the pain and job losses caused by unfair trade agreements, and he promised that as president, he would broker better deals that protected American interests. So what has he done? Although much more is to come, the new administration has already notched some impressive wins—and they deserve to be recounted.

First, Trump has pushed back against recent decisions by the Canadian government that subject U.S. milk exports to tariffs, harming dairy farmers in New York state in particular. He even earned praise from Sen. Chuck Schumer, usually no Trump fan, for his bold approach. “I support President Trump’s statement…[and] I look forward to working with the administration to pressure and persuade the Canadians to reverse this unwise policy,” said Schumer. Partly in retaliation for the Canadian aversion to U.S. milk, President Trump imposed tariffs on Canadian lumber.

Second, Trump delivered on his promise to improve the terms of the U.S.-China trade relationship, specifically by opening China to U.S. beef and natural gas exports and to banking and financial services companies. Granted, China’s status as a “currency manipulator” and other thorny issues have been put on the back burner, as Trump seeks China’s help in bringing North Korea to heel. Still, both countries have committed to making further progress within 100 days.

Third, early in May, the Senate confirmed Trump’s outstanding and highly qualified pick to be U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer. Despite the acrimony and partisanship that prevails in Congress these days, the vote was not even close: 82-14. (36 Democrats voted for Lighthizer.) This strong endorsement of the Trump administration’s point man for trade came in part due to both parties’ recognition that Americans overwhelmingly agree with the president that existing trade agreements have cost American jobs and need to be replaced. For instance, in a Quinnipiac poll done shortly after the election, Americans expressed a desire to renegotiate major trade deals, even if this meant that they would have to pay more for some products. 64 percent endorsed this approach, compared to 28 percent who were opposed. Given these numbers, Democrats would be crazy to oppose President Trump’s aggressive moves to achieve greater trade fairness. And crazy they may be, but not crazy enough to commit political suicide.

Fourth, on May 18, Trump took one of his biggest steps yet towards a “New Deal” on trade: he initiated a structured process for the renegotiation of NAFTA, our free-trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. The potential implications are, as Trump put it himself, “massive”. Moreover, Trump has unusual leverage, given his repeated statements that he is willing to “terminate” NAFTA if he isn’t satisfied with the renegotiation. At long last, that “giant sucking sound” of U.S. job losses to Mexico, caused by NAFTA and predicted back in 1992 by maverick presidential candidate Ross Perot, may finally be reversed. The media may not care, but you can bet that many voters would be elated.

Finally, on June 1, President Trump took the momentous step of withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement. He did so, as he explained in the Rose Garden, not because of any hostility to the climate (it’s absurd to suggest that anyone is rooting against Planet Earth, after all), but because he wishes to see the problem of carbon emissions tackled in a way that protects American jobs, promotes domestic energy production and energy independence, and treats the U.S. fairly in comparison to other nations. The last point is critical, because it’s clear that the Paris agreement was made by globalists, including President Obama, who are willing to assume the steady economic decline of the U.S., and the economic rise of China and other poorer countries. These declinists then calibrate the burdens of cutting carbon emissions and micromanage international economics accordingly.

By contrast, Trump’s realignment of U.S. trade policies presupposes, first and foremost, that our country controls its own economy and how it interacts with the economies of other nations. Multilateral pacts like NAFTA and the Paris agreement, however, compromise our economic sovereignty, because they are purposely designed to do so, and for this reason for President Trump they are a non-starter. Worse, the Paris Agreement surrendered our economic independence not in exchange for “fixing” the climate, but purely to obtain empty promises from other countries that, in the future, they would emit less carbon. The political and economic damage to the U.S. would have been certain, therefore, while the “gains” were purely speculative. All in all, Trump’s rejection of the Paris agreement is perhaps the best and strongest sign that Trump wants to reframe U.S. trade policies and, indeed, our whole trade philosophy, around America First.

Thus Trump is taking action on trade to fulfill the heartfelt desire of the American people, including Republicans and Democrats, to reconsider trade agreements, and other multilateral pacts, that aren’t in our national interest. On this issue, perhaps more than any other, President Trump has an opportunity to unite the country, as well as give a shot in the arm to struggling American workers.

On trade, Trump is succeeding where other presidents have failed. He has made protecting American jobs, and preserving our economic sovereignty, priorities for the first time in decades. No wonder the liberal media would rather talk about something else.

MORE IN ECONOMY

Hide 34 comments

34 Responses to Trump Is Winning on Trade

“Partly in retaliation for the Canadian aversion to U.S. milk, President Trump imposed tariffs on Canadian lumber.”

I guess that may be a true statement, but the main reason is that Canada basically gives public timber to Canadian timber companies. In the US, the forest service sells public timber to the highest bidder. Any company, including Canadian timber companies can bid on it. That’s been a big beef with Canada for a long time, not just under the Trump admin.

Mr. Waddy’s comments on the Paris Agreement make the same mistake that many on the right, as well as the President, make, namely equating our commitments under the agreement with restrictions on trade. They could also be seen as demonstrating U.S. leadership in this area, and as promotion of our technology for cleaner energy technologies.

At the same time, however, I think too many people on the left limit their ideas about cleaner energy to restrictions, regulations and a complete end to the use of fossil fuels. I wish more time was spent looking for ways to produce energy cleanly from all sources, including fossil fuels and renewable sources as well.

Why are the politicians and so called pundits fixating on Trump and Russia? Why not Congress, Presidents, mainstream media and the general run of the body politic and their (our) subservience to Israel? This should be investigated. It never will (apparently). Double standards. Never ask why “Profiles in Courage” is such a thin book.

It is very sad that democrats, their media and nevertrumpers are much more interested in their own political power than they ever have been for normal citizens. Thank you for this article that cuts through the manure that the democrat media calls news.

It’s absurd to assume anyone is against mother earth? Why? I’ve witnessed the Republican Party combat every attempt at every level to fight climate change we’ve ever undertaken. Seriously, what climate change proposal has ever been Republican led? Name one.

In my life we’ve gone from “very sensible conservatives” saying climate change isn’t real, to saying they “aren’t scientists”, to denying Democratic proposals would work, to saying “we need an international framework to truly fight climate change”, to denying that (voluntary, nonbinding) international framework on the basis of jobs. You all are absolutely, 100% full of it, you don’t care about climate change and we all know it.

Uh…You might want to check the reality of Trump’s “wins” before you hang them on the flagpole for a salute. Carrier is still laying off over 600 people from it’s Indiana plant by the end of this year. You say Schumer gave accolades to Trump for his policy on Dairy farmers in NY state? I’d say that is a reason to remain skeptical of what is happening there. Schumer is a socialist who knows how to keep votes coming his way. Where does Trump’s brand of Government intervention with Tariffs end? That is the real question that is begging with NAFTA. The marketplace deals with these issues much more efficiently than ANY GOVT official can or should. Anything else is just vote hustling. Trump is just as greasy as any politician in Washington, but so far he is outsmarting most if not all of them. He is not an ideologue. He is a businessman who understands how intrusive Govt. has become. I just hope that he doesn’t get drunk on power and cause just as much trouble as the problem children did that he was elected to replace and repudiate.

The globalist mainstream media spouts the lie that the American people are against renegotiating existing trade agreements, if the renegotiations mean paying more for some products. Two big thumbs up to Nicholas Waddy for exposing this oft-repeated mainstream media lie:

“Americans overwhelmingly agree with the president that existing trade agreements have cost American jobs and need to be replaced. For instance, in a Quinnipiac poll done shortly after the election, Americans expressed a desire to renegotiate major trade deals, even if this meant that they would have to pay more for some products. 64 percent endorsed this approach, compared to 28 percent who were opposed. Given these numbers, Democrats would be crazy to oppose President Trump’s aggressive moves to achieve greater trade fairness. And crazy they may be, but not crazy enough to commit political suicide.”

I recently watched a movie called Life and Debt, which documents how the removal of trade barriers that opened up Jamaica to the American milk industry destroyed the Jamaican small operator-driven milk industry. I thought Trump was about putting up trade barriers to protect American industries, not about taking down trade barriers to destroy the industries of other countries. Apparently I was mistaken.

““Americans overwhelmingly agree with the president that existing trade agreements have cost American jobs and need to be replaced. For instance, in a Quinnipiac poll done shortly after the election, Americans expressed a desire to renegotiate major trade deals, even if this meant that they would have to pay more for some products. 64 percent endorsed this approach, compared to 28 percent who were opposed. Given these numbers, Democrats would be crazy to oppose President Trump’s aggressive moves to achieve greater trade fairness. And crazy they may be, but not crazy enough to commit political suicide.”

”

The Quinppiac poll finds that 34% of American registered voters approve of Trump, and 59% disapprove. But let me guess: the approval numbers are fake, but the numbers on trade are real!

Carrier may still be eliminating jobs in Indiana but Trump’s critic are missing a valuable point. When Trump went “to the mat” for the jobs that were saved he did so as President-Elect making a strong effort with what tools he had in-hand at that time. As POTUS, he is now better able to fight for US jobs. Also, he did not simply rollover and give those men and women in Indiana no hope as Hillary and Obama, elitists/globalists that they are, had done. And by the way, the retraining programs that are supposed to retrain workers who lost their jobs foreign imports are a joke. The jobs they allegedly retrain people for are either lower-paying jobs or simply exists only in minds inside the DC Beltway.

The basic driver of the U.S. trade deficit for the last 35 years has been the Federal Reserve’s high “real” interest rate policy which has kept the dollar chronically overvalued. Basically, Trump has continued to support this policy and, further, with Chinese granting Trump and Ivanka trade mark concessions, have pretty much neutered Trump’s interest in pressuring China on trade. If Trump’s policies are helping American workers, they sure don’t show up in the numbers.

Contrary to the witless wonder who wrote this article, Trump will not b negotiating from a position of strength over NAFTA. While it is true that he can unilaterally withdraw from the treaty that actually does not result in any changes to the rules and laws governing trade between the countries. (The treaty is implemented via ordinary statutes that can only be changed by congress.) And Congress, in particular the Republicans, are adamantly opposed to changing those laws. So withdrawing from the treaty results in the US being obligated to keeping to all of the treaty provisions but frees up Mexico and Canada from not keeping to their obligations. And Mexico and Canada know this.

There simply trump blathering with no acts associated with them. And the tarriffs ao Canadian lumber have absolutely nothing to do with the dairy issue and are as meaningful as the sun coming up in the east. Every US president since 1982 has imposed illegal tarriffs on Canadian softwood lumber, proceeded to lose in every court/ panel that hears the dispute, and gets Canada to impose temporary limits and export taxes on lumber exports in order to drop the legal case. When these temporary limits expire, the process is repeated. (And no Canada does not subsidize this business, they charge market rates, its just market rates on trees in Canada are much lower than they are in the states. All it takes is a casual glance at a map, and a little knowledge of the composition of Canadian geography to know that this will always be true.)

On trade the big issue is China. Exporting jobs to China has destroyed the industrial Midwest. NAFTA passed in 1994, yet times continued to be very good here through the rest of the 1990’s. Then China was given MFN status permanently in 2001. After that manufacturing in the Heartland collapsed.

Trump gave China a green light, destroying any chance for meaningful positive action on trade. That failure alone outweighs any window-dressing his apologists can offer.

What did we give China in order to get greater access fo our beef exports? Rejecting the Paris accords ( voluntary) would be fine if they were rejected because Trump and Republicans were promoting a better climate plan. But the reality is that they are walking away from dealing with climate issues and handing leadership to China. Canada and Mexico agree that NAFTA should be modified. Let’s see what we all come up with before celebrating. So many jobs are dependent on these trade relationships that changing our basic relationship with Canada and Mexico would be very disruptive.

This article sums up the delusions of a Trump addled sycophant Right individual desperate to avoid dealing with his PDVS ( post decision validation syndrome ) using lies . fake news , misconstrued facts and reality distortion in the vain hopes such tactics will mitigate his PDVS as it drags him and the country into an abyss that will take decades for us to arise from . Case in point ;

“Americans overwhelmingly agree with the president that existing trade agreements have cost American jobs and need to be replaced.”

Fact Check . None of which Mr Waddy alludes to nor makes claims of has been ratified agreed upon or even on the table for negotiations …

Fact check . Trudeau the Younger has told Trump where to shove it and responded in kind

Fact check – Exiting the Paris Agreement will cost the US in dollars and cents and has already damaged our credibility worldwide beyond any short term repair

Fact check – Trump’s actions have seceded the US’s influence and power over to China lock stock and barrel .. from climate to finance and all places in between including the Davos Great Eight four of which are Americans

So ‘ wins ‘ ? Where . Or should I say in what alternative reality?

Which all begs the question . What exactly are you on Mr Waddy ? Dr Tim’s fav ? Pinkman’s wares perhaps ? A little fungi magic ? Something new the general public isn’t aware of ? And here I thought all you hard core Alt Righty Tighty’s were advocates of the War on Drugs . ” More Fool Me ”

Thank God in heaven not all on the Right are as blatantly out of touch with reality , deluded by Trump and addled by celebrity as is Mr Waddy and the Trumpoids sycophants a few of which are commenting today . Thank God in heaven indeed

Partly in retaliation for the Canadian aversion to U.S. milk, President Trump imposed tariffs on Canadian lumber.

So he’s increased building costs in the US, without getting anything in return yet. Win?

specifically by opening China to U.S. beef and natural gas exports and to banking and financial services companies.

And also opening the US to Chinese banking and financial service companies. We’ll see how well that works out – at a time the GOP is gutting financial regs to “help out local lenders”, they invite in a wave of Chinese bankers?

Third, early in May, the Senate confirmed Trump’s outstanding and highly qualified pick to be U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer.

That’s not a win. That’s just an appointment. Wins mean results … Mr. Lighthizer’s appointment is a process, not a result.

Trump took one of his biggest steps yet towards a “New Deal” on trade: he initiated a structured process for the renegotiation of NAFTA, our free-trade agreement with Canada and Mexico.

Again, you are conflating process with results. Trump does this all the time – it’s a hallmark of his career. But just as boasting about how great a Casino is doesn’t mean it won’t go bankrupt … boasting how great a negotiator Trump is doesn’t ensure that what will result from renegotiating NAFTA will be an improvement.

The last point is critical, because it’s clear that the Paris agreement was made by globalists, including President Obama, who are willing to assume the steady economic decline of the U.S., and the economic rise of China and other poorer countries.

It takes a particularly myopic mindset to assume that economic rise of China and other poorer countries assumes “steady economic decline of the U.S.”.

We know that Trump is subject to such myopia … it’s a shame that TAC has to give space to so called “conservatives” who make that assumption.

Savor this flavor of truth. URL below
Despite recent attempts to paint the United States as a major global polluter, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. is among the CLEANEST nations on the planet.
In the most recent WHO report on air pollution, the United States was listed as one of the countries with the cleanest air in the world, significantly cleaner in fact than the air in Germany, Italy, Switzerland, the UK, Japan, Austria and France.
While France and other G7 countries lamented the U.S. exit from the Paris climate accord, America’s air is already cleaner than that of ANY OTHERS country in the G7.
In a recent list of the 25 cleanest cities in the world, the only country to boast three cities among the cleanest on the planet was the United States of America, with Chicago coming in second place, Honolulu coming in fourth, and Portland, OR, coming in sixteenth. Unsurprisingly, no cities from China, Russia or India made the list at all.
With such relatively clean air throughout America, how can even reputable news agencies like Reuters continue spreading the well-worn LIE that the United States is one of the “biggest polluters” in the world?
Rather than follow the time-tested practice used by the World Health Organization, which measures levels of disease-causing pollutants that get into people’s lungs, some have played a shell game, swapping a new measure of “pollution” based solely on emissions of carbon dioxide.
The problem with this ploy is that carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant and it is dishonest to say it is. CO2 is colorless, odorless and completely NON-toxic. Plants depend on it to LIVE and GROW, and human beings draw some into their lungs with every breath they take to NO ILL effect whatsoever.
Growers regularly PUMP CO2 into greenhouses, raising levels to three times that of the natural environment, to produce stronger, greener, healthier PLANTS.
Current levels of carbon dioxide concentration in the environment are substantially LOWER than they have been during earlier periods in the planet’s history. WITHOUT human intervention, the concentration of CO2 has climbed as HIGH as 7,000 parts per million (ppm) in prior ERAS, whereas at present the concentration is just over 400 ppm.

Nice article. I don’t agree with President Trump on a number of issues, but at least he is talking about jobs and trade and trying to do something positive about it. He is setting the tone and sometimes that’s the only thing a President can do.

Amazing how China’s North Korean client started firing off missiles as if on cue to cool Trump’s rhetoric on trade. So long as we do not insist on reciprocity, China will continue to demand technology transfers and local partnerships of importers while enjoying unfettered access to our markets for their own exporters. Shipping raw materials to China Inc is part of the new mercantilism that China has sought to impost on the world via the ‘fair trade for you, protectionism for me’ policies that served Japan and S Korea so well during their ascendancies.

He is making a small moves on trade but is there anything truly significant here?

1) In terms of Canada, we have restrictions on soft lumber and diary exports. Footnote economic impact here.

2) The promise of NAFTA and Mexico is still there but nothing he is pursuing yet. Hell Carrier still sending jobs across the border.

3) And it appears he has given up labeling China a currency manipulator and busy promoting natural gas and financial service exports like the three Presidents. (And isn’t this one the big nation?)

4) A trade representative is confirmation is fine but little on policy.

He is winning on minor footnote stuff that has marginal impact on jobs and prices. (I bet soft lumber price increases 10% and we add 5,000 lumber jobs with a decrease of 5,000 nationwide construction jobs.) I still waiting for NAFTA changes where Mexico stops importing grains from Iowa which send Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst against Trump.

Frankly, I think Trump is too lazy a President to pursue any major changes to Free Trade and ends letting Paul Ryan do set the agenda.

Steel mills are hiring again, that would be American workers! I spent 25 years in the steel industry and got out in 1999 during the time period when 15 of the largest 17 American steel companies went bankrupt due to dumping caused by bad trade deals and over zealous environmental regulations. I appreciate Trump and his cabinet picks like Wilbur Ross that are aggressively working to protect American workers. We can complete with anyone in the world on a fair playing field.

We need a new tax system to make America Great Again! Our current tax system promote unemployment and encourage businesses to leave the USA. We should repeal all income taxes on the first $200,000 of earned income ….. Repeal the Federal Income Taxes, the FICA taxes, and the FUI taxes on both employee and their employers. This would give our workers more take home pay, and our employers more profit. To made up the lost tax revenue, we should pass the FAIR TAX on GOODs. This would tax goods made my machines or people the same, and it would tax foreign goods sold in this country the same a USA goods sold in this country. It would also enable us to export goods from the USA free of federal taxes. This would promote employment in the USA, and illegals would be paying the same taxes as Legals, perhaps even more. Making US workers more compeditive with the illegal workers.

It’s absurd to assume anyone is against mother earth? Why? I’ve witnessed the Republican Party combat every attempt at every level to fight climate change we’ve ever undertaken. Seriously, what climate change proposal has ever been Republican led? Name one.

In my life we’ve gone from “very sensible conservatives” saying climate change isn’t real, to saying they “aren’t scientists”, to denying Democratic proposals would work, to saying “we need an international framework to truly fight climate change”, to denying that (voluntary, nonbinding) international framework on the basis of jobs. You all are absolutely, 100% full of it, you don’t care about climate change and we all know it.

Climate change, right. Several times in the history of this planet. Ranging from ice ages to green forests in Antarctica. Long before humans invented anything vaguely resembling an industry or even began to exist.

You suggest fighting fundamental laws of the universe? Bold.

***

Jeff Fine,

But the reality is that they are walking away from dealing with climate issues and handing leadership to China.

China rooting for environmentalism? As probable as that beer barrel of a North Korean president rooting for the human rights, I’d wager.

It is noting change in America’s politics and infrastructure from 1980 it is bad and abusive.
I was emigrant from Europe, my first days and my first expression was , “are we in America or we in Russia?”

Just Plain Rick posted that, “I appreciate Trump and his cabinet picks like Wilbur Ross that are aggressively working to protect American workers.” But Ross’s business career has been built in large part by shipping jobs overseas. He believes strongly in this as a business model. He helps take over companies with high labor costs (that is, wages paid to us, here), and then offshores production to lower-wage countries.

Nothing new or surprising there, but Rick’s comments are part of a pattern in America right now that absolutely befuddles me: Trump supporters imagine what reality *should* be like under their President—often fairly based on what that Pres is claiming out loud–and then they operate as if that *should be* is actually what’s going on. Job #s are only one example.

The fact is, Rick, very little great economic news has been on offer for some months now–it’s mostly been a just a little less impressive than what was before– but the belief persists that every move that new guy is making must be brilliant, and will make us all fat and happy. I will say only that it is past due time to get yourself some alternative, more fact-based information, and apply some more critical reasoning to what you are told.